Author:

Ed Walker

IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc. Florida, USA

Abstract

Abstract: Bill Olivier and Oleg Liber begin this chapter with an succinct summary of the benefits of interoperable media and software for education and training, as well as a concise differentiation of specifications, reference models, and standards. At the time this chapter was written, most work on specifications and standards concentrated on data exchange. The data consisted of items of content, learner characteristics, or administrative information. But while they are necessary, data specifications by themselves are by no means sufficient to characterize the technical requirements of the interactions.
Indeed, work on a second generation of specifications that deals with the behavior, as well as the structure, of learning resources, had begun. Certainly much work remains to be done to refine and extend specifications for the means which underlie effective learning interactions... However, primitive as they are, using them have begun to reveal that use cases (examples) and profiles (applied standards) which differentiate pedagogies on the basis of their technical requirements -- as opposed to merely on the features of one pedagogical technique or another -- are difficult to find and understand.

Chapter
12: Learning Technology Interoperability Standards

Summary Comments

Bill Olivier and Oleg Liber have done a service to the field of
on-line learning by beginning this chapter with an succinct
summary of the benefits of interoperable media and software for
education and training, as well as a concise differentiation of
specifications, reference models, and standards. At the time this
chapter was written, most work on specifications and standards
concentrated on data exchange. The data consisted of items of
content, learner characteristics, or administrative information. To
be sure, such data is exchanged in learning interactions. But
while they are necessary, data specifications by themselves are by
no means sufficient to characterize the technical requirements of
the interactions.

The distinction the authors draw between de jure and de facto
standards foreshadows their central critical observation; which in
simple terms, is to speculate whether the notes and scales of
standards are powerful enough to represent the music of learning.
As they put it,

"In our opinion, the key question now facing
eLearning standards development is how they can ensure support for
the broadest range of pedagogic approaches."

Indeed, work on a second generation of specifications that deals
with the behavior, as well as the structure, of
learning resources, had begun at the time the chapter was written.
Olivier and Liber quote Professor Rob Koper's rationale for the now
completed work on specifying learning activities in the IMS
Learning Design specification.

"So far IMS has specifications to describe
learning (Meta-data), package learning (Content Packaging), to
support enrolments on courses and get results back (Enterprise), to
test learning (Question and Test) and to support the exchange of
information about learners (Learner Information), but there is
nothing to describe and define the learning process itself. That is
what EML brings to IMS Learning Design."

Certainly much work remains to be done to refine and extend
specifications for the means which underlie effective learning
interactions. The notes and scales we have do not yet constitute a
fully developed and enduring system for notating learning.
However, primitive as they are, using them have begun to reveal
that use cases (examples) and profiles (applied standards) which
differentiate pedagogies on the basis of their technical
requirements -- as opposed to merely on the features of one
pedagogical technique or another -- are difficult to find and
understand.

Are the specifications inadequate because they instantiate
out-moded or inadequate pedagogy or because more modern or more
adequate pedagogical approaches have yet to be expressed in terms
from which specifications can be developed? In fact, both the means
for delivering learning interactions and the goals of those
interactions are immature. The answer to the either-or question is,
not surprisingly, "yes".

Maturing Means

The status of the specifications reviewed has changed since
Olivier and Liber's summary of the state of the art was made. New
specifications that were yet to be started at the time of their
review have been added. Existing specifications have been revised
in response to user feedback and technical innovation. Many of the
specifications which Olivier and Liber mention have experienced
widespread adoption and use.

One duly accredited international standard has been approved,
the Learning Objects Metadata standard of the IEEE/LTSC. A content
management standard based on the AICC CMI is about to emerge from
the IEEE balloting process. Similar progress is being made in the
ISO SC36 Working Groups.

Work also continues in IMS, CEN/ISSS, SIF, and other
specification development organizations. In IMS, new work on the
selection and ordering of instructional content has grown from the
Learning Design and Simple Sequencing specifications and from the
assessment oriented Question and Test specification. A
specification defining Competencies, or educational objectives, has
been released, and accessibility extensions to the learner
information package and meta-data are under development. The
Enterprise specification is being extended and is now complemented
by a Digital Repositories Interoperability specification. The DRI
specification is serving as the basis for a growing collaborative
effort between the learning technologists and the digital library
community to address the interaction between learning environments
and distributed repositories.

The MIT Open Knowledge Initiative project has just released
specifications for Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) that
are aimed at providing interoperability between learning
environments and implementations of system services. This work is
the result of a multi-institutional project funded by the Mellon
Foundation, and its results already are being applied in
developments at several universities worldwide.

CANCORE and SINGCORE specify meta-data for the education and
training communities in Canada and Singapore, respectively. The
Schools Interoperability Framework Consortium is in the process of
profiling the IMS Question and Test specification for assessment
applications in the K-12 or schools community, and the SIF
Framework and Zone Integration Server are serving as the basis for
data aggregation and exchange in several communities worldwide. In
the UK, the Office of the e-Envoy is developing an e-Government
Interoperability Framework which includes a suite of specifications
for education and training.

The surest sign that adoption is progressing is rising demand
for tests of compliance and for maintenance and evolution of the
specifications and standards. Both kinds of demand have appeared
and are being met. The ADL Co-Laboratory has developed and deployed
test suites for SCORM. SIF has developed tests for the SIF Zone
Integration Server. IMS has initiated an International Conformance
Program in order to facilitate the development of application
profiles, test suites, and a program of certification which can be
adapted for use world-wide

It seems clear that the specifications which have been
developed so far are achieving the scale of adoption and momentum
from use that is required to carry them beyond their origins in
computer based training and their initial focus on data alone.
Specification development shows signs of becoming a sustained and
continuous process.

Maturing Goals?

Work to define the behaviours which constitute learning activity
-- both in the microcosm and in the aggregate -- also has
continued. The Learning Design specification stimulated by Koper's
EML has been released, as has a Simple Sequencing specification
arising from the instructional design requirements of the SCORM
community. On-going work on the selection and ordering of
assessment related content has progressed in the community using
the IMS Question and Test Specification.

Is this progress good news or bad? Or does it merely heighten
the concern that Olivier and Liber express that

"... eLearning standards will constrain
Internet supported learning by freezing a sub-set of existing
practices, or whether specifications can be provided that can
support the development of new, enhanced, but yet to be developed
approaches to learning which the Internet makes possible"?

Whether they are enabled by the internet or not, supporting
different pedagogical approaches will depend in the first place on
understanding their technical requirements. Could it be that the
key challenge or risk for the future of on-line learning is not the
provenance of the specifications or their representational power,
but the development of computationally relevant descriptions of
pedagogical distinctions?

Summary

The Simple Sequencing , Question and Test, and Learning Design
specifications have established a basic capability for
characterizing learning interactions. Is that capability sufficient
to support the theoretical constructs of scholars of learning? That
question can now be examined empirically.

So the field has arrived at a crux. Both the means and the ends
of learning technology are immature, but they do exist. Almost
certainly the specifications are inadequate. But are they
sufficiently mature to create a virtuous cycle of improvement
between those with a practical orientation and those with a
theoretical point of view?